L Biener1, M Siegel. 1. Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts at Boston 02125, USA. lois.biener@umb.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This prospective study examined the effect of tobacco marketing on progression to established smoking. METHODS: Massachusetts adolescents (n = 529) who at baseline had smoked no more than 1 cigarette were reinterviewed by telephone in 1997. Analyses examined the effect of receptivity to tobacco marketing at baseline on progression to established smoking, controlling for significant covariates. RESULTS: Adolescents who, at baseline, owned a tobacco promotional item and named a brand whose advertisements attracted their attention were more than twice as likely to become established smokers (odds ratio = 2.70) than adolescents who did neither. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in tobacco marketing often precedes, and is likely to facilitate, progression to established smoking. Hence, restrictions on tobacco marketing and promotion could reduce addiction to tobacco.
OBJECTIVES: This prospective study examined the effect of tobacco marketing on progression to established smoking. METHODS: Massachusetts adolescents (n = 529) who at baseline had smoked no more than 1 cigarette were reinterviewed by telephone in 1997. Analyses examined the effect of receptivity to tobacco marketing at baseline on progression to established smoking, controlling for significant covariates. RESULTS: Adolescents who, at baseline, owned a tobacco promotional item and named a brand whose advertisements attracted their attention were more than twice as likely to become established smokers (odds ratio = 2.70) than adolescents who did neither. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in tobacco marketing often precedes, and is likely to facilitate, progression to established smoking. Hence, restrictions on tobacco marketing and promotion could reduce addiction to tobacco.
Authors: J L Richardson; K Dwyer; K McGuigan; W B Hansen; C Dent; C A Johnson; S Y Sussman; B Brannon; B Flay Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: H M Alexander; R Callcott; A J Dobson; G R Hardes; D M Lloyd; D L O'Connell; S R Leeder Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 1983-03 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: D L O'Connell; H M Alexander; A J Dobson; D M Lloyd; G R Hardes; H J Springthorpe; S R Leeder Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 1981-09 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Cheryl G Healton; Kevin C Davis; Peter Messeri; James C Hersey; M Lyndon Haviland Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Melanie A Wakefield; Yvonne M Terry-McElrath; Frank J Chaloupka; Dianne C Barker; Sandy J Slater; Pamela I Clark; Gary A Giovino Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Thomas R Frieden; Farzad Mostashari; Bonnie D Kerker; Nancy Miller; Anjum Hajat; Martin Frankel Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 9.308